WARCOCK said:
Sure, but then this is a forum and our sole occupation is to discuss varying analysis on a common topic. Its like you are personally feeling butt hurt because we are bashing his point of view. I didn't care to elaborate, but since you asked so nicely. Crysis is a monumental game because it introduces alot of new components to general game design. It does pretty much everything other FPSs do except better. Hell the simple fact that barely any general consumer PCs can run it over 60fps maxed is a testement of how much its ahead of its time. I can understand where crysis could experience design pitfalls as a game when taken at face value like weak pacing, the ai issue explained above etc... But crytec and by that intermideate crysis is way beyond that. All the mods that are going eventually hit this are going to make this score questionable imo. Its a lack of foresight, thats all.
You're missing my point. I agree with EVERYTHING you said (with the exception of reviewing games based on "mods that (may) eventually hit", which is pretty ridculous, which I'll get into in a sec).
What I'm saying, is that if to him the pitfalls in the AI that are due to the enormity and scope of the game design are sufficient to hamper his enjoyment of the game, then he is perfectly reasonable to dock the game a few points. Whereas some other people may be more swept up in the scope of the game and how damn impressive, new, and innovative it is, he may see that and appreciate it (which he does, if you watched the 1up show), but feel that the problems that arise from it are enough to hamper his experience with the game.
I think the problem here is that many people want to take reviews as an objective judgement of games, where they're not. It's actually kindof funny that it comes up here, because in one of their recent podcasts(GFW, not 1up) they went on for quite a while about how reviews are not and by nature CANNOT be objective. They are always almost purely subjective accounts of how 1 or more people felt about a game. As such, you can't really say he's "wrong" for feeling the way he does. It's his opinion, and if the flaws hamper the enjoyment he gets out of the game to the degree that he doesn't enjoy the game as much as some other game that he may have given a 9, then he should not give the game a 9.
As for reviewing based on mods that "will be coming"...c'mon...are you serious? Talk about counting your chickens before they hatch...you can't just assume that there is going to be some mod so great that it'll raise the score of the game up beyond what he reviewed. Beyond that, the idea of reviewing something other than Crysis, and calling it a crysis review, is pretty absurd to begin with.
Realize that I'm not saying I agree with his review. Based on my time with the demo, I certainly feel that the incredible emergent gameplay possibilities that Crysis presents the gamer outweigh some quibbles with the AI. However, just because I feel that way doesn't mean a reviewer is wrong to disagree.
the1aser said:
Is the Crysis package one that is particularly out of the ordinary in terms of mod support etc? I know a lot of people spooged over the Halo package, but as a general rule I have difficulty rating a game based on what mod support it may or may not receive in the future.
From what I've messed around with in the Sandbox editor, it is mindblowingly well designed. I would agree, as I stated above though, that a game should not be reviewed based on mod support that is, at the time of reviewing, not there.
